Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Altering the "Planning a request" section

The steps in the "Planning a request" section does not seem to reflect how edit requests, at least from the COI side, seem to work. Very few edit requests seem to have started as non-templated discussions on the talk page; people go straight for the template. That is probably because the likelihood of someone seeing a non-templated request is low. Should this page reflect that reality, and if so, in what way? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people who are restricted from editing (mostly due to low editcount, non-autoconfirmed) don't know what templates are, how they work. However, when someone clicks the "view source" option at the same location as "edit" option, they are taken to a page with a banner giving them instructions to hit the blue button, which creates pre-filled templated section at the bottom. Hence, the straight to template thing. In fact, the template wasn't even visible on mobile devices at all until very recently. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If edit requests don't have consensus they can be declined and there is even a templated answer declining and directing the requester to get consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ending the idea of establishing consensus for edit requests

As brought up in the previous discussion, no one gets consensus for edit requests. Very few edit requests attempt to establish consensus, and that is also rarely a reason they are denied. This is because it is an unnecessary step. When editors want to add content to an article, they just do it. They don’t have to propose changes on the talk page first. Why do editors suddenly have to get their changes confirmed just because the page is protected? For fully-protected pages, sure, it makes sense to require consensus. But anything else is both not how it actually works right now and unnecessary slowness added to the (already incredibly slow!) process. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I seem no need to do anything here - edit requests are handled by humans, who should have good enough judgement to know whether a request requires a formal consensus or not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that’s true, but by that logic, why do we have policies and guidelines? We shouldn’t give what few requesters whom read this page the impression it’s necessary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Recommend using the textdiff template

Given the number of requests that don't fully implement WP:EDITXY it seems like suggesting the use of {{TextDiff}} or a similar template might be worthwhile. This might be a useful "stencil" for editors unfamiliar with ERs to use. Thoughts? --N8_wilson 🔔 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The huge majority of edit requests don't seem read any of the instructions, so I think asking them to use a template is probably too much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Rejuvenating the discussion here after the other one got archived after I replied. There are still people who follow these instructions. This argument sounds a bit like the Nirvana fallacy. This proposal also does have benefits lots of times, as it makes the changes clearer, especially when people follow the x to y format and decide to include the entire paragraph just to add a single sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the responses on the archived thread cover more than enough reasons not to do this. Added complexity with very few situations where it will be more clear than it is without using the template isn't worth it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any situations where using the template makes it less clear, could you give me some pointers? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When the use is inevitably botched by the majority of the vanishingly small minority who will use it, it will make things less clear. You'll notice, however, that I said that there would be very few situations where it would be more clear, not that it would be less clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really get how someone who understands the instructions here can botch understanding the very easy docs of textdiff. There is only one added step(going to and understanding the docs), which amounts to little complexity. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Going from reading no documentation other than what pops up when you try to edit a page you don't have permissions for to having to read up on a template, and figure out what a template is, is a massive increase in complexity which will only dissuade the sliver of those requesting edits that follow the existing instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to figure out what a template is, you only have to realize that you can magically generate a diff with {{ | . I also didn't understand what your first half sentence(up to the comma) meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence describes the standard work flow now, which is trying to edit a page you can't and being funneled into an edit request, versus what you suggest which involves reading documentation on a template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make reading the docs mandatory. I just wanted to make this a recommendation on at least this page. It could be extended to the ERW and submit an edit request preloads. So, this recommendation has multiple levels:

1. Recommended on this policy page 2. Recommend in ERW preloads 3. Recommend in {{Submit an edit request}} preloads None of these levels include requiring it. I advocate for all three. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose 3; I've seen too many instances of the literal {{TextDiff|ORIGINAL_TEXT|CHANGED_TEXT]} from {{request edit button}} for me to be convinced that adding it to further preloads is a good idea. Don't really care about 1 and 2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Declining Third Opinion request

I note the good faith request for a 3O, however there are three editors involved here, and others in the earlier and archived discussion on the topic. Perhaps you could try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. With best wishes to all; Springnuts (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Springnuts Sorry for the late response, but the 3O page says 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. N8wilson only made one comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I was unduly harsh. I hope you managed to solve the dispute. Springnuts (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I forgot about it for 7 months... Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Appealing a rejection

The page lacks advice on what to do if a request - especially a CoI request - is declined, and the reason the declining editor gives seems to be wrong, unfair, or based on a misreading of ether the request or Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the procedure is to reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tried exactly that, and been reverted and told "Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Edit COI}} template for this proposed change." Greater clarity about this point would be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If an edit request was declined, unless you make a different one or change that one very much, probably you are going to be reverted if you just copy paste the declined request. You can check the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't copy'n'paste the original request. I did exactly as advised above: "reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Can you link said situation? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I think the answer is to follow the dispute resolution process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests still self-updating?

I do not know if this is the place to raise this issue, or if it should be checked on somewhere else (if I should ask elsewhere, I would greatly appreciate being pointed in the right direction). But I think the tool that automatically updates Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests might not be functioning currently. Even after purging its cache, it still displays edit requests that I have already responded to and the last entry listed has the date and time of 2023-10-11 10:45. I have looked in on the list briefly several times over the last several hours and haven't noticed any new entries added. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The table at the top is updated by a bot, which is currently down. I've reported it to the bot operator, and he should fix it soon. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail! --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My request is not being logged

Yesterday, I made an edit request on Talk:Gaza Strip. I realised I had made a mistake and changed it from "semi-protected" to "extended-protected". It did not appear in Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests. In case the change from "semi" to "extended" was the cause, I changed the date and time stamp. It still has not been logged. The thread is currently here. -- 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:EDA4:1631:84EC:506D (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Talk:Gaza Strip is categorized into "Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests". You can see it under letter "G" at the bottom of this, more specific URL. The table at the top the category page is updated separately from the categorization system. It is updated by a bot. Page "Talk:Gaza Strip" has been added to the table on 9 October 2023 due to section Talk:Gaza Strip § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023, and hasn't been moved out of the table since.

The appearance of the page in the category is more or less instantaneous. But the bot takes a while to do its job. There are four "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request" sections on the page right now in various statuses. The bot's table links to the first active request on the page (the part #editextendedprotected in the URL). The bot only detects the first active request on the page. The first active request at the time on writing is the one from 9 October 2023. It is a relatively rare situation to have more than one active request on a talk page like that. That's why the bot doesn't have a feature to detect more than one requests.

I hope this helps. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9C60:A829:A63D:9DD4 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Andrybak 2001:4456:C5C:2900:3427:7549:37CD:4396 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Quinlan

Anthony Quinlan date of birth is the 14th April 1984 his age is 38 not 39 92.11.104.42 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add an edit request to Talk:Anthony Quinlan, following the instructions on this page. NotAGenious (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sometimes an edit request is closed with {{subst:ESp|?}}, for the reason that the request is slightly ambiguous, with no further action taken by the responding editor. In some such cases, the suggested material is non-controversial, would improve the article, is reliably sourced, etc. But, it is, again, slightly ambiguous. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I suggest adding to WP:ERREQ something along the lines of: "If you decide to reject a request, that in essence holds merit, simply because it lacks Mona Lisa level perfection, nothing is stopping you from improving the relevant article yourself based on feedback contained within the request." I can give two examples. Although I fear these will be used primarily to point out why requests get rejected or have been taken at heart after all or are exceptions, instead of to better understand what I am suggesting here. Regardless, 1. a dead link, and 2. a production company. I'm not the kind of editor to keep logs of where I've seen what, so you'd have to take my word for it, but I've seen this happen many times. So, my suggestion is to have the information page suggest one additional step if the decision is to reject a request: can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another, sort of, example here. The responding editor reacts, "In any event, this request is not specific enough - you need to specify the exact wikitext you want to be added and where it should be added - just "please add content about bar" is not enough." --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback." Yes. Any editor may edit any Wikipedia page (unless it's protected). If another editor objects then the edit should (no guarantee that it will) generate discussion of the proposal. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

include that you can change parameter from yes to no for declined requests too similar to further info needed section 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think what you're proposing is substantially the same as the current wording of the section. Liu1126 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate talk page comments incorrectly headed by protected edit request templates

The transaction consisting of an edit request answered with "Not done" at [1] is the latest such transaction I've seen fitting a pattern that concerns me. I'm talking about cases where the content of the request isn't for a specific edit but, rather, an unremarkable inquiry or suggestion such as one typically sees on talk pages, potentially leading to a constructive discussion. But because the user added it through the edit request mechanism, another user will respond "Not done, we need the specific changes you're requesting", close the request—effectively shutting down the discussion and leaving the original poster hanging, no doubt frustrating them and possibly deterring them from ever bothering again.

I imagine that these are users, possibly brand new to editing, who thought that making an edit request is how you initiate a discussion on the talk page. Instead of shutting them down, it would be helpful for the respondent either to explain that their post is acceptable but that they should remove the template, or else to remove the template on their own. Or perhaps an option could be added for the edit request response parameter to indicate that the contribution is legit but not technically an edit request as Wikipedia defines it, producing a canned message that explains this and invites others to respond as they normally would if the post hadn't been tagged as an edit request. Or maybe there's some other option. Anything other than the slap in the face that's happening now. Largoplazo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not shut down. It's just no longer listed in the place where volunteers go to help with specific, uncontroversial edit requests. Local discussion can continue just as it would if no edit request template were used. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how it looks. Think of it from the point of view of the original poster as well as, perhaps, other people. "I think this article could stand improvement in such-and-such an area." "Not done. Please state exactly edits you want made." It comes across as "Go away and don't bother us till you have specific text of your own." The user doesn't know, "Oh, they're responding that way only because I used that template" and no one is explaining that to them. It is not user-friendly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for increasing the user-friendliness of the template. I don't think the discussion looks closed or shut down. I frequently see discussion continue on declined requests. We might disagree on the problem but agree on a solution. What are you proposing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Procedure for requesting an edit to protected talk page

The Planning A Request procedure is not very helpful for editors wanting to make an edit it a protected talk page. It would be good if there were a simpler method of making such a request. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If a talk page is also protected, the best one can do is ask someone with an access level capable of editing the page the page to do so via the user's own talk page. 74.65.143.60 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests to edits to a protected talk page may be placed here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)